Chennai: Owning properties worth several crores and luxury cars does not deny a woman lawful maintenance from her estranged partner, Madras high court has said. The court observed while confirming an order of a family court directing payment of ₹1 lakh as maintenance to a woman who owned a flat worth ₹1.7 crore and ₹1.5 lakh to her child.Justice Sunder Mohan passed the order while dismissing revision petition moved by the woman’s partner challenging the family court order.According to the man, a film producer, his relationship with the woman, who was a model was not solmonised as a valid marriage and that he already has a legally married wife. Therefore, a woman who he was in live-in relationship was not entitled to maintenance.He added that he was lured by the woman and taking advantage of a weak moment, got conceived to gain unlawfully. He had also stated that he was willing to pay maintenance to the child but not to the woman.Pointing out that the woman has alleged that the petitioner suppressed the existence of a legal marriage by stating that he was divorced, the court said, “in such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have established that he never made such a representation and that the earlier marriage is subsisting. The petitioner has not let in evidence to counter the evidence let in by the woman on this aspect.”“Though the Supreme Court had held that a second wife, whose marriage is void on account of the existence of an earlier legal marriage, is not entitled to maintenance, the apex court had also held that the burden is on the husband to establish that the earlier marriage was in subsistence,” the court said.It is the case of the petitioner that the woman has sufficient means to maintain herself and owns a flat worth Rs 1.7 crore and has two luxury cars. These facts are not in dispute.But the evidence reveals that after the child’s birth, the woman did not have a regular source of income. No evidence to the contrary has been let in by the petitioner. The findings of the family court, which is based on the evidence, cannot be faulted, the court said.
